MHB Show Sentences Proof: "Hey Again! (Wasntme)

  • Thread starter Thread starter evinda
  • Start date Start date
evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Hey again! (Wasntme)

I want to show the following:

  • If $t \in A$, then $t \subseteq \cup A$
  • $\cup \varnothing=\varnothing$
  • $ \cup \{ a \}=a$
  • Let $x \in t$.

    So, $\exists t (t \in A \wedge x \in t) \rightarrow x \in \cup A$.
    Therefore, $t \subseteq A$.
  • $$x \in \cup \varnothing \leftrightarrow \exists b (b \in \varnothing \wedge x \in b)$$

    The empty set $\varnothing$ contains no elements, so there is no $b$ such that $b \in \varnothing$, so there is no $x$, such that $x \in \cup \varnothing$.

    Therefore, $\cup \varnothing=\varnothing$.
  • $$x \in \cup \{ a \} \leftrightarrow \exists b (b \in \{ a \} \wedge x \in b) \leftrightarrow (b=a \wedge x \in b) \leftrightarrow x \in a$$

    Therefore, $\cup \{ a \}=a$.
Could you tell me if it is right or if I have done something wrong? (Thinking)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Very well! One minor remark about the first problem. You have a set called $t$. In the scope of this proof, it may be considered a constant. I would not call a variable bound by $\exists$ by the same name $t$. The object immediately following $\exists$ is a variable, not a constant, so when you say $\exists t$ you introduce a new variable that happens to have the same name as the existing object $t$. Then, for example, saying "There exists some $t$ (in fact, it is equal to the set $t$ mentioned above)" would be awkward. So I would say
\[
x\in t\land t\in A\to\exists u\;(x\in u\land u\in A)\to x\in\bigcup A.
\]
Saying that the last implication holds by definition of $\bigcup A$ would not hurt, either. But overall, good job.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
Very well! One minor remark about the first problem. You have a set called $t$. In the scope of this proof, it may be considered a constant. I would not call a variable bound by $\exists$ by the same name $t$. The object immediately following $\exists$ is a variable, not a constant, so when you say $\exists t$ you introduce a new variable that happens to have the same name as the existing object $t$. Then, for example, saying "There exists some $t$ (in fact, it is equal to the set $t$ mentioned above)" would be awkward. So I would say
\[
x\in t\land t\in A\to\exists u\;(x\in u\land u\in A)\to x\in\bigcup A.
\]
Saying that the last implication holds by definition of $\bigcup A$ would not hurt, either. But overall, good job.

I understand! Thank you very much! (Nod)
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top